A Slam Dunk  Or Was
It?

(Reprinted from the issue of May 10, 2007)

By
the end of a long war, it may be hard to remember how it
began or what it was all about. The Trojan War  lets see
 something about Helen, Menelauss queen, wasnt it?
World War II Germanys invasion of Poland? (Oh yes, the
Soviets invaded too! Nearly forgot!) World War I? Who knows?

Now we are arguing
about how the Iraq war started. Did it have something to do with George
Tenet, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, assuring
George W. Bush that Iraq had nuclear weapons and ties to
al-Qaeda, posing an imminent threat to the United States and its allies?
(Slam dunk, Mr. President, Tenet reportedly said.)

In his new book
At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, Tenet
disputes this legend, though he admits he used the term slam
dunk and was misled. Still, he insists that he meant something rather
different from what it sounded like in the retelling, and he blames Vice
President Dick Cheney for propagating the distorted account. (He lets
President Bush off more leniently.)

Tenet has already
given several major interviews about the book, including one on 60 Minutes,
contending that the neocons in the administration were intent on attacking
Iraq long before the 9/11 attacks. He quotes Richard Perle as saying Iraq
must be punished for those attacks the day after they occurred! Tenet says
the CIA already had information pointing to al-Qaeda; and al-Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein hated each other. Casting Saddam as the ally of Muslim
fanatics was one of the administrations most implausible sleights.
How did the public ever fall for that one?

Some of
Tenets assertions are already being challenged, but I dont see
how these, at least, can be doubted. If the neocons had anything to say
about it, a war on Iraq was bound to happen. I seem to recall saying that this
was obvious over 20 years ago. (Not that Ive gotten much credit for
it, then or now.)

After all that has
happened, Bush seems to have learned nothing. He persists in warning us
that unless we stop our enemies in Iraq, well have to stop them here.
But who are they these days? And how are they going to get
here? Are they training camels to swim across oceans? What, exactly, is
Bush imagining?

You can only pity men
like Tenet who have had to please and placate rulers so dishonest and
irrational. Beyond that, though, it gets confusing. Why did he wait so long to
tell us something so important? Was he saving it all for his book?

All the people in
positions of power seem to know more than they are saying in public. If
democracy requires an informed citizenry, what was the point of
slam dunk, anyway? Good enough for government
work? We seem to be getting further and further away from the
original reasons for this war, whatever they were.

I didnt think
the Iraq war debate could get any more confusing and bitter than it already
was. I stand corrected. All that is clear is that nobody in Washington is eager
to hog all the credit for this war.

Now please
dont ask me to explain what set off the Wars of the Roses.
Democrats on Parade

The Democratic presidential
candidates have now had their first televised debate, to call it
that, and better men than I seem to agree that Hillary Rodham Clinton bested
her rivals, especially Barack Hussein Obama and John Reid Edwards. She
spoke of retaliating against attacks on this country, while the
others tried to pander to those who just want peace.

So why
did my own heart go out to the candidate nobody favors 
Delawares Sen. Joe Biden? Ive poked fun at
him for years, but suddenly I was listening to him with respect, affection,
and even a little yearning, not only during the pseudo-debate but also, even
more, during the Sunday talk shows.

First, he made me
laugh. Asked whether he could restrain his notorious garrulity, he shot back
with a grin, Yes. It was a delightfully humble moment.

But my heart
didnt turn over until Sunday, when I noticed a subtle change in his
overall tone. He didnt talk like the standard liberal
personally-opposed-but-pro-abortion Catholic Democrat Id always taken him for.
He recalled that hed spent five months in the hospital for two brain
aneurysms, the top of his skull removed, an experience that would leave
anyone changed, more reflective and self-critical.

If Im any
judge of people at all, Joe Biden takes his faith very seriously now. That may
explain why he doesnt seem to take himself very seriously.

Not that Im
endorsing him for president. That would be taking myself much
too seriously. Besides, I cant even endorse the presidency, so what
would be the point?

Let me put it this
way. The U.S. presidency is a fantastically powerful office; nobody should
hold it, because in its present form it should not even exist. But if we are
doomed to have a president, the only Democrat who doesnt frighten
me is Joseph R.Biden Jr.

If Im wrong
about him, Im wildly wrong and Im very sorry. Hell be
put to the test soon enough.

But our merciful
Lord, who brings good out of evil itself, has glorious surprises in store for
us. Surely some of the greatest of them will come from people we always
thought were our enemies.
Piety and Orthography

Just to show that my power of
finding things to complain about is unimpaired by age, allow me to grumble
about my pet peeve: the modern practice, peculiar to English, of capitalizing
pronouns referring to God and Jesus Christ.

What does it achieve,
beyond cluttering up the page? No translation of the Bible does it. Is that
impious? By this logic, unknown to any other language I know of,
wouldnt it make much more sense to apply it to divine attributes
(his Will) or even body parts  e.g., to write his
Hands (or even his Spittle) than His
hands?

If piety is to be
expressed this way, then capitalizing the name of Satan must be a step
toward devil-worship.

Having endured many
scoldings from readers on this score, Ive been waiting to say this for
years.



Whom did the
great Laurence Olivier salute as my favorite actor? Why,
Mickey Rooney! Who else? Regime Change Begins at
Home  a new selection of my Confessions of a Reactionary
Utopian  will provoke thoughts and smiles. If you have
not seen my monthly newsletter,
SOBRANS, yet,
give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and request
a free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers
get two gifts with their subscription. More details can be found at the
Subscription page of my website.

Already a subscriber? Consider a
gift subscription for a priest, friend, or relative.

SOBRANS and Joe
Sobrans columns are available
by subscription. Details are available on-line; or call 800-513-5053; or write
Fran Griffin.

FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and
others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation. Click
here for more information.